Privacy injunction for third England footballer

A third England footballer has won a High Court injunction to prevent the
publication of claims about his private life.

by Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter

7:40PM BST 28 Aug 2010

The sportsman was granted the “gagging order” to prevent the disclosures in a tabloid newspaper. He is the third England footballer to secure such an order in recent weeks.

The player, like the two others before him, cannot be identified for legal reasons after obtaining the latest ruling from Mr Justice Parker.

The case will intensify the debate over privacy laws, which has been prompted by a growing number of injunctions, often by high-profile sporting figures, against the British media.

The Telegraph Media Group has been at the forefront of disclosing the legal actions by individuals, which have raised growing concerns that the courts are, in effect, creating a privacy law through the back door.

MPs and lawyers have questioned whether freedom of speech still exists given the spate of actions by well-known sportsmen and others to prevent the publication of details about their private lives.

Related Articles

Two weeks ago, a leading footballer won a High Court injunction to prevent the publication of claims about his private life. Days later another England player obtained a similar “gagging order” and now a third has obtained yet another ruling – all within the space of just 15 days.

Earlier this month it also emerged that Colin Montgomerie, the golfer, had won an injunction to halt the disclosure of claims about his private life.

He told a press conference: “I know a lot of you are having a lot of fun right now at my expense”.

The golfer, who is Europe’s captain for the Ryder Cup in Wales in October, refused to take questions about his private life saying that “by definition, that is private”.

Newspapers and their lawyers are getting increasingly frustrated by the apparent ease at which rich sportsman and other celebrities can obtain an injunction solely on privacy grounds – even though those seeking the orders have often not disputed the accuracy of any claims against them.